Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

An anonymous reader writes "You may recall that in early 2010, Sony decided to roll out an update that would remove the ability for PlayStation 3 owners to install a different operating system on the console, citing security concerns as the reason. Geeks and Linux enthusiasts were outraged at the move, particular since the "Other OS" functionality had been advertised as a feature of the PS3. A class-action lawsuit was soon brought against Sony. Many of the initial claims were thrown out, and now, a federal judge in California has granted Sony's motion to dismissed the lawsuit, saying, 'As a matter of providing customer satisfaction and building loyalty, it may have been questionable. As a legal matter, however, plaintiffs have failed to allege facts or articulate a theory on which Sony may be held liable.' Here's the full text of the order (PDF)."

I think there would be some other people somewhat upset if you just dropped hundreds of thousands of dollars on what are now tiny black bricks useless to you. Accounts, commanding officers, taxpayers, etc.

I wonder if a FOIA request [af.mil] would yield any information about what exactly those PS3s are doing now?

I suspect that at some point these consoles will fail. And at that point they would have to buy new ones, which would come with updated firmware. Unless they bought a warehouse full of replacements at the time, which is not impossible.

I think there would be some other people somewhat upset if you just dropped hundreds of thousands of dollars on what are now tiny black bricks useless to you. Accounts, commanding officers, taxpayers, etc.

Except they didn't become useless bricks. These PS3s are not used for gaming, and so can quite easily avoid the update.

Well, unless they have some sort of service contract with Sony that states they get exact replacements, including firmware, that's just too bad. There's a reason enterprise and military stuff is more expensive than consumer equipment, and serviceability and product longevity is a big part of it.

methinks you forgot the reality of your statement: they rely on having linux on them (which, no, just having custom firmware will not fix because the removal of otherOS also means it's not legal to flash custom firmware), but also because they rely on PS3's having linux on them for hardware replacement. [techdirt.com]

From the air force on this exact issue, and why you, sir are the one who is not at all bright:

"We will have to continue to use the systems we already have in hand," the lab told Ars, but "this will make it difficult to replace systems that break or fail. The refurbished PS3s also have the problem that when they come back from Sony, they have the firmware (gameOS) and it will not allow Other OS, which seems wrong. We are aware of class-action lawsuits against Sony for taking away this option on systems that use to have it."

Yeah, uh, you do realize that the techdirt article you linked to is from May 2010, RIGHT? The quote from the USAF is even older than that. A cursory search shows plenty of info indicating that the USAF is in fact running clustered PS3s/linux - and is getting special treatment from Sony. Here's a link (out of many) with more recent information on the matter:

Under the license that you are offered, you're correct. I imagine it's perfectly possible that the USAF is able to acquire different licensing that allows them to accomplish their mission with Sony's hardware.

In California, it is illegal to advertise something and then at the point of sale, change that condition. It's called, "Bait, and Switch." I wonder why this wasn't brought up. The penalties in California are not friendly at all.

That's the beauty of software these days. You purchased the hardware, which you have in your possession. You didn't purchase the software. You purchased a "license" to the software. Sony is still providing you with software, albeit in updated form. They fixed a bunch of bugs, and added new "features." What's not to like?

This is the fundamental problem with software "sales" as they currently exist. They're a hybrid sale/license, such that the laws associated with sales and licenses don't really apply well. The software industry hops to the side that benefits them the most. Oh, you want to sell your copy of SuperMetalHaloBrothers ? Sorry, you *licensed* the software, and the license is non-transferrable. Oh, your kid munged your CD for SuperMetalHaloBrothers and, since it's licensed, you'd like to just get replacement media? Sorry, you *purchased* the item and you'll need to re-purchase it because the original item was destroyed.

I may be wrong, but I think that changing the software part way through the life of a product could be seen as a breach of statutory warranty under Australian law. If you bought something that was advertised to do something and then find it can't do it, you can at least get a refund for it, regardless of whether the software is licensed or sold. The software is essential to the operation of the machine and must allow the product to perform the advertised functions.

Microsoft takes features out of their software the second Tuesday of every month. It's called "Patch Tuesday". That most people didn't want those features is irrelevant: some people did. That the features can be quite important is told by the fact that major enterprises employ teams to "vet the patches" against their golden images and designated sacrificial customers so they can avoid the ones that break critical infrastructure until the software that relies on the features can be upgraded, modified or replaced. Microsoft has no choice but to remove these features since they're also vulnerabilities that lead to compromise of the computer. In the best case these vulnerabilities can be considered poor design choices. In the worst cases like AutoRun they're just stupid.

Retail Windows users are on their own, and are typically divided into types: auto-update and no-update. The auto-update crowd have become used to some portion of their environment going dead now and then and waiting for their software vendor to issue an update - even if it's in the software library that interacts with the driver that drives the solenoid that opens their cash register drawer. The no-update crowd have become used to being very careful opening emails and clicking links and resigned to rebuilding their PC once a year when it's become too crap-infested to work at all. Neither set sees Windows as a reliable platform for home or small business use but what are they going to do? They don't have an IT team to keep them safe and can't afford one. Most of them would prefer their PC work more like their iPhone or Android phone, their iPad or Android tablet. But they don't sell something like that at BestBuy, Walmart or Staples yet.

I never held much hope the courts would find against Sony in this. It's probably legal. Wrong or right is a complete other thing. By keeping it in play for so long the suit has put it in the public eye that Sony will defend to the death their right to sell you a major software feature and then take it back. And that's the lesson we should all take away from this. It's a cultural thing. In Japan noone would question this at all. Sony is Japanese. The Japanese have great respect for authority, even corporate authority. They're not going to understand why we think this is not OK. Sony thinks this decision benefits their corporate brand, not diminishes it because it "proves they were right" - and there's nothing we can say to them that will counter this estimation because the concept is so alien they can't understand it.

I feel sorry for those affected of course, but that's not me. I don't own any Sony stuff. For fifteen years what the Sony brand means to me is "a thing that doesn't work with your other stuff." I was never in any danger of being impacted by this issue. See, I'm a "progressive" guy, and when I'm considering buying a new thing I look at both whether it is designed with open standards so it works with the things I have - but more importantly, will completely work with the amazing things I'm going to have after they've been invented and produced in the future. Sony doesn't pretend to offer that, so they don't get my money. I do like Samsung though - for now.

Why would you want access to the PS3's GPU? It sucks. You can do better on a AMD's Llano platform for half the cost of a PS3. I wouldn't doubt the Radeon 6310 in the E350 has more computational power then a PS3, SPUs included. It will also have more RAM and use a fraction the energy.By the way - I'm a ex-games programmer with 17 years in the biz, four of them programming the PS3 so I know of what I speak. The PS3 has 6 pixel quad pipes for a total of 24 ALUs running at 550MHz. The HD6310 has 80 total pipes running at 500MHz.The PS3 GPUs can't do double float math either. I'm not sure about the 6310.

The shrinkwrap agreement on the PS3 says they can change anything they want about the device at any time.

Sony didn't advertise the OtherOS feature after they removed it, so trying to get them on false advertising is a stretch.

I think the upshot is that you agreed to the EULA, and the EULA said Sony can do this, so the Judge doesn't see what leg you have to stand on. It was unpopular, but they didn't break any law. This is actually an important test for EULAs, since normally removing functionality from a device after the sale would cause legal problems, but the EULA prevented that.

I think that the point is that they advertised the OtherOS feature *BEFORE* they removed it... and then they removed it, effectively making a form of bait-and-switch for people who had already bought one with the expectation of that capability.

Accepting the patch:Can still play on networkCan play the latest gamesCannot use Other OS.

Not accepting the patch:Cannot still play on networkMay not be able to play the latest gamesCan use Other OS

All three conditions were advertised, and thus all three conditions should be delivered. That's like me coming to your house after you bought a car from my dealership and telling you that I'm going to take either the tires or the doors because i want to sell them to someone else for extra money. It was right th

I'm not sure that is the same. The ability to drive the car is the main feature of the car. Limiting that limits the main feature, ie the whole point of buying a car for most people. The ability to install a third party operating system was not the main feature of a PS3, and does not affect its main feature, ie playing games. So it would be more like removing the ability to fold down the back seats-something that does not affect the main feature of the car, but really annoys people who do use it.

Yes, it does...If you want to retain the ability to run linux, then you lose the ability to play any newer games (as these require a newer firmware)... This effectively creates 2 tiers of ps3 units, and games dont state on the packaging which tiers they work with.

This also means that if you send your ps3 for repair, its likely to come back with a newer firmware that prevents you running linux.

A more apt car analogy would be, you purchased a car which came with a sound system, and after owning the car for a

Don't attribute this to corruption or bribery, as there is evidence of none and there is no reason to believe they exist here--particularly with federal judges, there is almost never an issue as to corruption. They don't need to be reelected.

No, here the problem was that the judge viewed Sony's behavior as akin to operating a private park it allows people to drive in if they agree to disable a feature of their cars. So people are still allowed to use the features of their cars if they do not go into the p

No, corruption or bribery couldn't possibly have to do with him stating that Sony did nothing wrong by advertising a feature of a product, selling you said product with that feature, then coming back later and removing it. Again, this double standard with software companies NEEDS TO STOP. If Ford decided to disable your navigation system (that was sold to you as part of the car) when you took your car in for maintenance, you'd be able to sue them to hell and back. But when a software company does it, it's just peachy.

To win, plaintiffs would have had to show they had a legal entitlement to continued access to the network. They didn't, so the judge tossed the case.

You mean like paying for the console (advertised as having access to PSN and other OS) and not providing any reason to be banned, such as using hacks to cheat in games?

He did not say that Sony did nothing wrong--he said the plaintiffs hadn't made their case. There is a massive difference.

Did the console payment legally entitle the user to have access to the network? The plaintiffs failed to show that it did. Sony doesn't have to provide a reason to be banned if their contract doesn't require them to--whereas Ford and other auto companies might promise to provide service as part of a package that obligates them to do so. But if they required you to disable your navigation system as a condition of their repairing a car they were not obligated to repair, I don't see why you would be able to sue them for that. (It would be a poor sales move, though.)

That would be all well and good... Except Sony never really marketed the feature. A few odd quotes from Sony and some more detailed spec sheets from tech shows mentioning it are not in themselves marketing. It was never treated as a core feature by Sony and certainly wasn't marketed as such, the vast vast majority of users didn't know anything about it.

Then there's the fact you were and still are able to use the Other OS feature on PS3s, you just can't update it (which means no PSN and a restricted library of games you can play). Courts accept that products can have limited lifetimes when it comes to support and Sony are more than entitled to release games for the PS3 that customers can't play on certain console configurations. The most obvious example of this would be PS Move only games. If you want to play those, you have to hand over more money for the Move kit and have to possibly mess around with your AV setup which was fine up until then.

A convincing argument for both of these wasn't presented to courts and ultimately it's the courts who decide if there's a case to answer for.

When you buy a PS3, it says support is only for a limited time. When you buy a PS3, it doesn't say it comes with PS Move, and when you buy those games they say they require PS Move. But when you bought a PS3 with the Other OS option, it never said that was for a limited time. It never said it only applied if you didn't want to use certain other features of the console. And it didn't say it could be removed if you sent your console in for service.

Then there's the fact you were and still are able to use the Other OS feature on PS3s, you just can't update it (which means no PSN and a restricted library of games you can play). Courts accept that products can have limited lifetimes when it comes to support and Sony are more than entitled to release games for the PS3 that customers can't play on certain console configurations.

I took a look at the order, and it was entirely focused on the conditional access to the PSN. While it mentioned that the firmware update might have been required for certain game title and Blu-Rays, it did not explore those issues at all. While I understand the reasoning that PS3 buyers cannot reasonably expect to be able to access the PSN without ever altering their setup, playing Blu-Rays seems like a more basic functionality.

I wonder if there is a case where someone wanted to continue to use "OtherOS" b

It's safe to assume that if it was on any box from any region, it would've been widely circulated. As of yet, I've not seen any external packaging or marketing material that advertises the OtherOS feature.

The sad part is that I fully expect this to happen, right down to the text of the message

I bet Sony does that sort of thing to their own grandmas' PS3s if they don't bake their cake or serve their sushi the right way. ERR325: invalid cake response--ps3 cannot start but it is still better than wii because they have mario and fuck mario

Geeks.. I suspect this has been done. Everyone else, it's going to take something that actually hurts them.

Don't forget, Sony hasn't done anything that would really piss off the general population. Sony gets on our nerves because the areas they are evil in are highly visible to us, but to the average user, non-issues.

Lest we forget, most users have never heard of the OtherOS feature, didn't care about DRM being installed on their computer (probably amazed it could fit in there with all the other crap they probably had running), and their biggest concern when their credit card info and personal details got stolen was "when can I play games again!".

Even with the relatively high geek/gamer crossover, I suspect that even if every user who could define in a sentance what the OtherOS thing was about immediately boycotted Sony.. it wouldn't even register as a blip in the profit statements.

That seems similar to what happened with my first gen iPod touch:You must download the latest version of this app to continue using it.You must download the latest version of iOS in order to update this app.You cannot update to the latest version of iOS because your iPod is too old.

IANAL but AIUI you can't just file a complaint at court and expect a judge to join the dots with existing law. You have to explicitly say "Sony ripped me off contrary to law A". If the suit was started with just "Sony ripped me off!" (which, AFAICT, is exactly what happened), that's not good enough.

Shrink wrap legal agreements aren't enforceable and it's a shocker that the judge didn't know that. You can't have a legal agreement without a meeting of the minds and the ability to back out. Unfortunately, shrink wrap licenses don't permit for review as one typically has limited ability to return the product, and in many cases no ability.

If you bought the PS3 in order to use OtherOS, the update wasn't mandatory. It's only mandatory for games. No one had OtherOS forcibly removed.

Not that I agree with their choice, but a Linux PS3 and a Gaming PS3 have different requirements. What was lost was the ability to have both fully functioning at the same time. This seems like something they should have been able to articulate to the judge, but if they just focused on "it's a mandatory update", which is a false statement, I can see how it would be dismissed.

1. Anyone who send a failed machine to Sony for repair received a replacement unit with OtherOS removed.2. PSN and some new games require the firmware update, therefore, a non-updated PS3 is crippled and can't play games that are designed and market for updated PS3's. Since the PS3 is primarily marketed as a game console, the inability to play new games designed for the PS3 is contrary to the primary purpose of the machine, thus "crippling" it.

If you RTFPDF, an automotive analogy is, in fact, cited in the case. Here, let me get that for you...

"With the exception of the “Unjust Enrichment” claim discussed further
below, all of the counts are based on plaintiffs’ fundamental contention that it was wrongful for
Sony to disable the Other OS feature, or, more precisely, to put PS3 owners to the “Hobson’s
choice” of either permitting the Other OS feature to be disabled or forgoing their access to the PSN
and any other benefits available through installing Firmware Update 3.21. Plaintiffs offer an
analogy: “if Toyota disabled the battery feature in its hybrids and forced owners to use only
gasoline, it would not matter whether the auto’s warranties had expired.” Opposition at 1:8-9. In
plaintiffs’ view, it should be self evident that, “A manufacturer cannot unilaterally take away a
fundamental feature of a product after that product has been sold to a consumer – regardless of
whether the warranty is still in effect.” Id. at 1:9-11."2

But the judge said it's a flawed analogy (as most automotive analogies are):

The flaw in plaintiffs’ analogy is that they are claiming rights not only with respect to the
features of the PS3 product, but also to have ongoing access to an internet service offered by Sony,
the PSN. A somewhat fanciful, but more apt, analogy would be if Toyota sold hybrid vehicles with
an advertisement campaign touting that Toyota owners would have access to a recreational driving
facility, a no-speed limit amusement park for cars. Then, at some time thereafter, Toyota instituted
a rule that its hybrids would not be permitted in the park unless the owners allowed the battery
feature to be disabled. In those circumstances, Toyota hybrid owners who declined to authorize
disabling of the battery feature would still have fully-functional hybrid vehicles, capable of running
on an electric motor or a gasoline engine, as appropriate under the conditions. Similarly, PS3
owners who declined to install Firmware Update 3.21 still have fully-functioning devices, capable
of either being used as game consoles to play games on optical disks, or as computers, with the
Other OS feature.

So, what the judge is saying is that this isn't really about Other OS. It's about access to PSN, and that linking access to PSN to disabling Other OS is legal. That doesn't make it ethical, but this is a court not a church. He has to rule on matters of law not emotion.

For what it's worth, I think that Sony was slime for doing what it did (as they are for many other things that they have done... rootkits, not giving a damn about customer security, etc.), and it will be a cold day in hell before I buy a Sony product or fail to advise others to not buy any Sony product, but IN THIS CASE they didn't run afoul of the law. I also think that it's vastly preferable that judges wield their powers objectively rather than emotionally, because otherwise a racist or homophobic or nationalist or otherwise reprehensible judge would be completely able to get away with imposing their emotion as law.

I also hope that some of the shrill voices here are never allowed to sit on a jury, because if they are, they would surely decide the case based upon who they liked and hated rather than on the facts and guilt-or-innocence. Mob-think is not a suitable substitute for law or rationality.

I think where the judge's analogy falls apart is when he assumes your car would still be "fully functioning" if you avoided the amusement park for cars. If I want to buy (insert some new PS3 game here) and play it without ever connecting to the PSN, I'm going to be forced to install a firmware update just to play the new game, aren't I? I don't see how that would constitute my PS3 being "fully functional" anymore. (and I don't see how that could be worked into this car analogy either)

Not that I own a PS3; I don't. But that's how things are done with my Xbox360.

And if that happens, you return the game. There's explicitly no guarantee that a device you have now will be applicable for all future use. You can't sue Apple because you buy Photoshop, which requires OSX Lion or later, and you can no longer use some old PowerPC application you were able to use prior to Apple dropped PPC emulation. You have a choice -- upgrade, and lose PPC emulation, or don't upgrade and not use newer software.

A judge (who is doing his job properly) only rules based on what was argued. There is no mention of 'new games' in the order. If 'new games' is really an issue, then it is the plaintiff's fault for not bringing it up.

There is a list: Just about every last game released after 3.21 came out. Sony does not allow games to be released unless they require that you update to the latest firmware as of the time you "go gold". So anything that went gold after 3.21 came out requires 3.21. For example, Portal 2 came out April 19 2011, and PS3 3.60 came out March 10. Plenty of time to put the 3.60 update on the Portal 2 disk and require it to be installed before the game will run, which they did.

Valid contention, provided there is a list of games that require firmware installs of v3.21 or up; please mod parent UP in this case.

True, but if those games were released after the PS3 in question was sold and after Other OS was being advertised, the fact that those new games won't run without the update will be irrelevant for any assertion of warranty or suitability of purpose. If the PS3 with pre-3.21 firmware continues to run every game that it ran at the time you bought it, it passes the legal test (as HizzonorTheJudge pointed out). It's the linkage of continuing PSN access to accepting 3.21+ (and loss of Other OS) that was the remaining point of contention, and it looks like Sony set things up "correctly" (from their perspective).

Yup, it sucks. The recourse now is to punish Sony with your wallet rather than with a lawyer. Frankly, I think that a boycott will be more effective in any case, as it is much more directly tied to Sony's profit-and-loss statements than a court case that would have at most resulted in a half-hearted firmware update. I buy thousands of dollars' worth of consumer electronics, music, movies, computing equipment and games per year, both for myself and as gifts to others; some of my work has also had me as the decision-maker on five-to-six-figure computer purchases (for both the test lab and for users' desktops and laptops). Sony used to get a good chunk of that. They now get zero, and I don't see what could Sony could possibly do to convince me to change that in the future.

Many games require newer firmwares, Gran Turismo 5 is one of them and requires 3.5, Portal 2 requires 3.60 etc, and there are a LOT more... Read some of the warez forums, warez users are somewhat better off than by the book linux users because they have a cracked firmware 3.55 and they tend to keep track of which games require newer firmwares.

There is no statement on the box that these games require a newer firmware, and if you purchase them expecting to play them on your 3.20 ps3 with linux installed you m

Sony advertised this as a specific feature of the platform. They then took it away (or took away other abilities if you chose to keep that one). How the hell could the case be dismissed?

It could be corruption. I'm not alleging it here, just speculating, for fear of being sued by Sony. Even though based on this judgement I should be able to allege whatever I like then take away that feature at a whim. Sony may or may not own one or more judges. Or alleged judges as the case may be.

Ipso facto ergo proctor hoc hoc dibildy do be do shebop. "Like a milking stool, my case rests on three legs". I am the law.

Read the ruling. What it boils down to is that, even though PSN + Other OS were both advertised features, there is no guarantee that PSN will exist indefinitely. And, the court acknowledges that it is at Sony's discretion. Because you have the choice of installing firmware 3.21, or not, Sony hasn't violated their original agreement to provide Other OS functionality.

It's not very complicated, in fact it's downright easy to read, and fairly well articulated at that..

If Sony had disabled Other OS without a user's choice, they would be paying some large settlement costs right now. As it is, they only pay their lawyers to defend against an obviously weak case.

If I buy an item, and it has more than two features that I want I am going to be pissed right the fuck off if I have to choose later between the two features because I can only keep one. I bought them both, I should be able to use both unless otherwise compensated.

And if it was as simple as that, there wouldn't be any argument. Too bad that's not the case at all. The judge either ignored or missed the significance of the plaintiff's claim that all PS3 games released since have (by Sony's rules) required firmware 3.21 or later to function. Not agreeing to the update didn't just cut off access to PSN, it effectively made it not a PS3 (by definition, since it can't play PS3 games).

Want to know something amazing? You can find out! You can click that link up in the summary, read the full text of the decision, and find out! Isn't technology amazing?

For what it's worth, the judge ruled that because Sony had not actually removed the functionality- what they had done instead was ban unmodified PS3s from accessing their service- what they were doing was legal. You may not agree with the decision, at least try to get a grasp on the logic behind it before you start yelling.

Sony Marketing Executive: Okay all we're going to do is advertise that the Playstation 4 can play the games from any system ever made. Sony Engineer: But that's not true... well, I mean it could technically run some sort of emulator for each system if it existed but... Sony Marketing Executive: Shut up, we just announce after the launch that this functionality was disabled because of "security concerns." Sony Lawyer, Son of Satan: I can work with that.

how the fairly basic logic of "they sold me the product with the marketed feature xyz which I valued and used, then disabled it after purchase, without compensation and with only forced permission" doesn't warrant relief?

(by "forced permission" I mean they asked, do you want your OtherOS to continue to work, or do you want your BluRay player to continue to work on new titles?" You were forced to choose which feature they were going to disable)

(by "forced permission" I mean they asked, do you want your OtherOS to continue to work, or do you want your BluRay player to continue to work on new titles?" You were forced to choose which feature they were going to disable)

Agreed; I would say any time the choices are "agree to these new, draconian terms, or we turn your $400 piece of hardware into a brick" would qualify as being agreed to under duress; perhaps I'm mistaken, but I was pretty sure any contractual agreement signed under duress was legally considered non-binding.

how the fairly basic logic of "they sold me the product with the marketed feature xyz which I valued and used, then disabled it after purchase, without compensation and with only forced permission" doesn't warrant relief?

You have to squeeze in another step:

"they had me agree to an EULA that basically allows them to do whatever the hell we want as a condition of using their product".

It is explained clearly in the order. The key is PSN, which is owned by Sony, not you. Access to PSN is completely at their discretion, and you have no reasonable expectation that you will have access forever. They changed the rules of PSN access to be 'no OtherOS'. YOU elected to install the upgrade (remove the feature) in order to continue access to THEIR service. Nothing was 'forced'. It was YOUR decision.

Actually, any games that were compiled after the release of firmware update 3.21 do require that firmware or later. I don't know exactly what the rules are, but I think Sony requires game developers to use the latest SDK available prior to release. Even with older games, there's no way to tell if it will work since there's no indication of firmware version requiremenst on the box and newer disk runs may carry the newer firmware requirement.

Sure we were stuck with bugs and we wouldn't get wonderful whiz-bang features, but at least we wouldn't have to worry about the vendor modifying the device that we purchased after the fact. (Even though I wasn't hit by the PS3 fiasco, TI did something on their calculators quite a few years back.)

For what it's worth, I think one of the arguments made in favour of Sony was that you didn't have to upgrade your PS3's firmware. Which may be true, but it doesn't negate the fact that the firmware updates are required for newer games and people also expect to buy newer games when they get a PS3.

You can see the judge's logic on p. 5 of the order. He says users had the option to refuse the software update, keep running Linux, and stop using PSN. "Nothing in plaintiffs' factual allegations or their arguments is sufficient to support a conclusion that Sony has any obligation to maintain the PSN in operation indefinitely." This seems strange to me. When you buy a PlayStation, part of what you're paying for is access to PSN. Of course nobody expects PSN to be operational in 100 years, but neither does anyone expect PSN to be permanently shut down one hour after they buy their PlayStation.

Of course nobody expects PSN to be operational in 100 years, but neither does anyone expect PSN to be permanently shut down one hour after they buy their PlayStation.

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on the circumstances), expectations are not part of legal contracts. While it would be nice if everyone fulfilled any contracts to the satisfaction of both parties, it would also make having those contracts pretty pointless. Since Sony does not advertise or guarantee access to PSN unconditionally, they are within their rights to cut off access to the PSN. It doesn't make the move any less unethical, but legislating ethics (particularly from a judicial bench) has a

Correct. They hinged it all on "We deserve PSN forever" instead of "if you don't update you can't play games released after March 2010". Don't see how the judge could say "When you buy a PS3 there is no reasonable expectation that it will be able to play new PS3 games and BluRay movies". But they didn't make that claim so there's nothing to rule on in that regard. Judges can't do the lawyers' jobs for them!

When you buy a product, there's a reasonable expectation that, for the lifetime of the product, the features available to you at time of purchase will continue to be available, barring hardware/technical issues.

For example, it is unreasonable for a company to sell, say, a laptop with a DVD burner, then disable your WiFi with a warning that enabling it will disable your DVD burner. It just doesn't make sense, from any angle, that a feature advertised on the box would be disabled in order to keep another feature mentioned on the box. It just boggles the mind that they feel this is an acceptable course of action.

That said... a reasonable expectation may not translate into something actionable in a court of law. At the least, Sony should be shunned (I, for one, haven't purchased another Sony product since the incident, and have no intentions of doing so in the future. My PS3 is collecting dust at the moment, despite titles that intrigue me. I won't fund them directly or indirectly through licensing deals with game companies.) by all customers.